9/11 - The Truth: Part 2

mr_angry

We've all seen www.standdown.net at this stage, and we've all had our say on what we think the truth actually is. Anyway, now it seems some like-minded American-types have taken up the baton.

See this link for all the details. Of course, the White House will never release any incriminating documents, but they might drop NORAD in it...

Éomer of Rohan

Well, having read said link, do any of you really believe that a US Commission will release any incriminating evidence of the US Government if the USA was involved in the attacks, or more probably, in allowing the attacks?

The result will be that this commission decides more could have been done and a few middle-high level heads will roll. End of commission.

There will never be an answer to what I quite reasonably hypothesised may have happened on 11/09/01 in the light of the claims of Meacher and after reading standown.net.

Geromino

I wonder if you would really accept the truth or would you only accept those that you politically agree with regardless of the validity.

DaithiSurfer

Jaysus,
More conspiracy theories.
These fools will only be happy when Mulder and scully are on the case and can prove the same alien who shot kennedy from the grassy knoll and faked the moon landings was flying all of the planes on sept 11 with his telekenetic powers given to hime by the CIA scientists at area 51.
By the way he has now posessed the body of george bush.
You can see it in his face. He's trying to speak for himself but cant because he is posessed.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
I wonder if you would really accept the truth or would you only accept those that you politically agree with regardless of the validity

Of course you do. Many flag waving Bush supporters would too. Those statements are entirely coincidental.

I do not trust information released by any government because generally it reeks of vested interest; which means I look at it with an objective eye - regardless of whether it agrees with my ideas or not; remember, when I said what might have happened, I was not saying it was what I thought did happen - I made sure to point out that it is always only going to be guess-work in these cases; which by the way renders Daithi's post completely irrelevent (if that was necessary).

Geromino

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Of course you do. Many flag waving Bush supporters would too. Those statements are entirely coincidental.

I do not trust information released by any government because generally it reeks of vested interest; which means I look at it with an objective eye - regardless of whether it agrees with my ideas or not; remember, when I said what might have happened, I was not saying it was what I thought did happen - I made sure to point out that it is always only going to be guess-work in these cases; which by the way renders Daithi's post completely irrelevent (if that was necessary).

Eomer,
Yes, anything is possible. It is possible for you to go out on the sidewalk and get run over by a truck. It is also possible for you to die if you had an operation. Those possibilities always exist. However, the likelyhood of something like the examples depends on other factors known to the given set of facts at that time. I only deal with plausible possibilities, not anything goes. Hence the reason why I made my statement and do not believe in conspiracy theories. They make great Hollywood films, but not documentaries.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Eomer,
Yes, anything is possible. It is possible for you to go out on the sidewalk and get run over by a truck. It is also possible for you to die if you had an operation. Those possibilities always exist. However, the likelyhood of something like the examples depends on other factors known to the given set of facts at that time. I only deal with plausible possibilities, not anything goes. Hence the reason why I made my statement and do not believe in conspiracy theories. They make great Hollywood films, but not documentaries.

I wonder what consitutes a "conspiracy theory" in your mind. Actually I'd like a definition of conspiracy theory.
You seem to suggest that this is all conspiracy theory with regards 9/11 but you also suggested that CIA involvement of the toppling of Iran's Moussedeq are a "conspiracy theory" when they are documented fact.

mr_angry

Originally posted by Geromino
I wonder if you would really accept the truth or would you only accept those that you politically agree with regardless of the validity.

I'd be more than happy to accept the US government's explanation, had it not been for the glaring inaccuracies, and the suspicious "look the other way" attitudes to the events of the day, many of which were highlighted by standdown.net. I'm not prepared to accept all the left-wing bullsh*t that the American government planned it, but I'd be outraged if the omissions and conflicting evidence in the NORAD reports were completely ignored! I don't want to start a blame culture, but they weren't following procedure for some reason, and I think its only fair to ask why.

Dathai - please look in the dictionary for the difference between the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "investigation". This is an investigation.

DaithiSurfer

This is not an investigation.
Its a whole lot of people not wanting to believe one or more mistakes are a cover up by the us government.

When people say things like -

'Well, having read said link, do any of you really believe that a US Commission will release any incriminating evidence of the US Government if the USA was involved in the attacks, or more probably, in allowing the attacks?'

- it reads like a conspiracy theory to me.


When people would rather belive that someone is hiding information or not releasing information rather i would say that they are angling towards their big brother set it up angle.

So lets say they were involved -: they'ld say they weren't.
Lets say the weren't involved -: they'ld say they weren't.

Conspiracy theorists or gobdaws that follow them would choose the line that it was a cover up despite having no more evidence for one argument than the other.

Lets say NORAD said that yes they did tell the pilots not to catch up with those planes just in case they spooked the hijackers and the hijackers then crashed the plane on purpose (there was no precedent for this before - things are different now tho).

What would you say then, probably soemthing like 'They were ordered by the CIA not to intercept ... blah blah [insert theory involving aliens, cia, government etc here)'

This is how these 'conspiracy theories' start.

The truth is, you dont know what the story is and i dont know, but making up **** to suit your conspiracy theories is not the way to go.

sovtek

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I'd be more than happy to accept the US government's explanation, had it not been for the glaring inaccuracies, and the suspicious "look the other way" attitudes to the events of the day, many of which were highlighted by standdown.net. I'm not prepared to accept all the left-wing bullsh*t that the American government planned it, but I'd be outraged if the omissions and conflicting evidence in the NORAD reports were completely ignored! I don't want to start a blame culture, but they weren't following procedure for some reason, and I think its only fair to ask why.

Dathai - please look in the dictionary for the difference between the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "investigation". This is an investigation.

Questioning of government cover up and incompetence/complicity is neither a characteristic of the "left wing" nor excrement.
You said it yourself. It's being investigated and it's being done so by people that might have a conflict of interest, like Thomas Kean being a business partner of Bin Ladens brother-in-law or given that the Bush family and Bin Laden/Saudi Royal family all have close family and business ties.
Then you look at the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz being members of the PNAC as well as signatories to a document that states a goal of dominated the Middle East and other such nonsense and that states that it would be impossible to carry out their stated goals barring "another Pearl Harbor". Which is exactly what many people were calling 9/11 immediately afterwards.
Then you factor in that UNOCAL and Haliburton wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan and tried to make a deal with the Taliban, but couldn't. Then 6 months after Bush takes power 9/11 happens. Six months after that a government headed by at least 2 former UNOCAL consultants...poof UNOCAL has their pipeline.
Factor in, as well, a history of departments in the intelligence and military agencies willingness to attack American civlians (Operation Northwoods) in order to carry out covert and overt actions against various countries for various business and political goals.
Someone asking why these facts are so coincidental wouldn't have to be left wing or full of sh1t to ask about them nor would they be "conspiracy theorists".
It's an investigation that is tainted from the outset and will probably never produce anywhere near the whole truth.
Did the US government plan it? Maybe maybe not. Were they complicit..yes...the only question is was it from incompetence or intentional.

DaithiSurfer

i give up ..... the whole conspiracy bandwagon can't be stopped.

like i said before.
JAYSUS!!!

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
Questioning of government cover up and incompetence/complicity is neither a characteristic of the "left wing" nor excrement.
You said it yourself. It's being investigated and it's being done so by people that might have a conflict of interest, like Thomas Kean being a business partner of Bin Ladens brother-in-law or given that the Bush family and Bin Laden/Saudi Royal family all have close family and business ties.
Then you look at the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz being members of the PNAC as well as signatories to a document that states a goal of dominated the Middle East and other such nonsense and that states that it would be impossible to carry out their stated goals barring "another Pearl Harbor". Which is exactly what many people were calling 9/11 immediately afterwards.
Then you factor in that UNOCAL and Haliburton wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan and tried to make a deal with the Taliban, but couldn't. Then 6 months after Bush takes power 9/11 happens. Six months after that a government headed by at least 2 former UNOCAL consultants...poof UNOCAL has their pipeline.
Factor in, as well, a history of departments in the intelligence and military agencies willingness to attack American civlians (Operation Northwoods) in order to carry out covert and overt actions against various countries for various business and political goals.
Someone asking why these facts are so coincidental wouldn't have to be left wing or full of sh1t to ask about them nor would they be "conspiracy theorists".
It's an investigation that is tainted from the outset and will probably never produce anywhere near the whole truth.
Did the US government plan it? Maybe maybe not. Were they complicit..yes...the only question is was it from incompetence or intentional.

And if I can prove that Jupiter, Mars, and Venus were perfectly aligned, would you then want to use Astrology as a prediction of when someone will attack someone else? I think not!
There is a problem of coincidence with investigations: no direct link to the allegations, just inuendo. It is heresay Sovtek and has no business in any investigations. By the way, I have a royalty from an oil well investment that is in conjunction with Exxon-Mobile that is in conjunction with UNOCAL. Oh my God, I am linked with OBL and terrorists. Hogwash, Sovtek.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
And if I can prove that Jupiter, Mars, and Venus were perfectly aligned, would you then want to use Astrology as a prediction of when someone will attack someone else? I think not!

Are you high?
Crap like that doesn't do anything to counter my argument and makes you look like an idiot.

There is a problem of coincidence with investigations: no direct link to the allegations, just inuendo.

It is a direct link when Osama Bin Laden's, who has been largely accused of mastermining the 9/11 attacks, brother in law is a business partner of the head of the commission investigating said attacks ( as well the fact that the White House blacked out whole sections of documents pertaining to possible House of Saud/Bin Laden family connections to the hijackers). That's not called a coincidence...its called a conflict of interest...but you're right, it doesn't have any business in an investigation.

It is heresay Sovtek and has no business in any investigations. By the way, I have a royalty from an oil well investment that is in conjunction with Exxon-Mobile that is in conjunction with UNOCAL. Oh my God, I am linked with OBL and terrorists. Hogwash, Sovtek.

What exactly are you referring to as "hearsay"?
The connections of Bush family to House of Saud/Bin Laden family? Karzia and Khalidad working for UNOCAL? UNOCAL dealing with the Taliban? The PNAC citing "another Pearl Harbor"?
Are you sure they are just hearsay?
What are you going to conjure up when I provide you links that show just what I've stated?
Your investment doesn't link you to Al-Qaeda but you have invested in another type of terrorism.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
Eomer,
Yes, anything is possible. It is possible for you to go out on the sidewalk and get run over by a truck. It is also possible for you to die if you had an operation. Those possibilities always exist. However, the likelyhood of something like the examples depends on other factors known to the given set of facts at that time. I only deal with plausible possibilities, not anything goes. Hence the reason why I made my statement and do not believe in conspiracy theories. They make great Hollywood films, but not documentaries

I really like how this is automatically denounced as a conspiracy theory - it's hilarious.

Likelihood depends on information known to be fact, fair enough. Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows enough to say what did or did not happen - and in a minute or two I will post the link to my own hypothesis on what could have happened and was acknowledged to be possible and plausible even by certain members of the right wing on these boards.

Quoted from Sovtek
Are you high?
Crap like that doesn't do anything to counter my argument and makes you look like an idiot.

Geromino, as you said, "the likelyhood of something like the examples depends on other factors known to the given set of fact," and it is patently obvious to those with a modicum of sense that for a start, there wasn't an interplanetary alignment and even if there was, someone doesn't fly a plane into a building at every interplanetary alignment. Science would suggest that there is no link because the 'experiment' is 'unreliable' (using the scientific definition of the word).

Quoted from Geromino
It is heresay Sovtek

So is your knowledge of Sierra Leone but we don't go around telling you it's incorrect for the simple reason that 99% of us will base our knowledge of that country on hearsay too.

Éomer of Rohan

Rather ironic comments from dahamsta, considering...

My hypothetical scenario regarding US foreknowledge/complicity in 11/09/01

mr_angry

When people would rather belive that someone is hiding information or not releasing information rather i would say that they are angling towards their big brother set it up angle.

Ok, I appreciate your points here Daithai - you think people are going over the top with the conspiracy theories, and I would hesataintly agree. However, would you do me a favour, and answer this question please?

Do you think the US Government, Air traffic control, and NORAD have collectively given a satisfactory explaination of their actions on September 11th?

I don't think so. And I think it should be investigated. I appreciate that people have some wild ideas in this forum, and are allagorising some of the issues, but I don't believe any of your posts so far have really contributed to the original discussion. I'm perfectly willing to listen to your opinions on the INVESTIGATION being carried out, but please don't flood this thread with stuff like:

i give up ..... the whole conspiracy bandwagon can't be stopped.

like i said before.
JAYSUS!!!

If you have something constructive to say, please do. But I fail to see the point of posts like this, unless its simply to antagonise people who are trying to make sense of the events of September 11th, albeit with a bit of creative thinking. I'm not trying to "mod" this thread, and neither do I have the right to tell you what to do, but I'd just like to keep things on track. I apologise if that offends anybody.

Hobbes

I haven't read standdown. However the latest one I did read recently is Bushes timetable before and after 9/11 and from the public knowledge it looks like he knew full well an attack was going to take place but didn't know the nature of the attack (in the fact that it appears he may of accidently avoided being assinated before the planes hit). He also let the attack continue (He was told numerous times but continued to do nothing).

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm (actual footage of Bush sitting on his ass while the attacks went on)
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html (Bushs timeline)

DaithiSurfer

Well mr_anry you'll be glad to know that i've decided that there is no point in talking to OR trying to convince conspiracey theorists to give up talkint bull****.

In answer to your question.
Yes i have been given an adequate explanation to this, but of course i'm not going to tell it again here because none of you would believe it because its too simple and real for your corrugated mind that is clearly looking to point the finger at a much bigger villain. If you read my posts in the first place you would have noticed that in there is the most accepted, yet simplest theory available, but oh no, there's no huge govt body etc to blame.

When John Carthy got shot you probably said too that the govt arranged for him to be shot dead because he had secret info that would bring them down.

anyway like i said before, enough from me. THere's no point.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by DaithiSurfer
Well mr_anry you'll be glad to know that i've decided that there is no point in talking to OR trying to convince conspiracey theorists to give up talkint bull****.

I'm curious as to whether you automatically disbelieve all conspiracy theories - a position as naive, surely, as automatically believing them?

For that matter, does anyone still seriously believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy?

Compulsory read: Bill Pepper's An Act of State - I defy anyone to read it and still believe James Earl Ray had anything to do with the killing of Martin Luther King.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Geromino
I only deal with plausible possibilities, not anything goes. Hence the reason why I made my statement and do not believe in conspiracy theories. They make great Hollywood films, but not documentaries.

Yeah because the American government or US intelligence services have never done anything self-serving, stupid or illegal.

... oh look that Hollywood film "All the Presidents Men" is on ... where do they come up with this stuff....

:rolleyes:

mr_angry

Yes i have been given an adequate explanation to this, but of course i'm not going to tell it again here because none of you would believe it because its too simple and real for your corrugated mind that is clearly looking to point the finger at a much bigger villain. If you read my posts in the first place you would have noticed that in there is the most accepted, yet simplest theory available, but oh no, there's no huge govt body etc to blame.

Ok, your posts so far have said:

You can see it in his face. He's trying to speak for himself but cant because he is posessed.

Nonsense.

The truth is, you dont know what the story is and i dont know, but making up **** to suit your conspiracy theories is not the way to go.

No actual explanation offered by you here either.

i give up ..... the whole conspiracy bandwagon can't be stopped.

What appeared to be you giving up.

So, tell me Daithai - where exactly would I find your plausable explanation for what happened on 9/11? In these posts? I think not.

Yes i have been given an adequate explanation to this, but of course i'm not going to tell it again here because none of you would believe it because its too simple and real for your corrugated mind that is clearly looking to point the finger at a much bigger villain.

That's an interesting position. You think you know what happened, but you've decided in your wisdom not to tell us! You should let George Bush in on this technique - then he might not have to hand over documents to the people involved into the investigation of what actually happened on September 11th! Why exactly do you post here? It certantly doesn't seem to be to convince people...

DaithiSurfer

Originally posted by DaithiSurfer
Lets say NORAD said that yes they did tell the pilots not to catch up with those planes just in case they spooked the hijackers and the hijackers then crashed the plane on purpose (there was no precedent for this before - things are different now tho).

Open your eyes, you've really proved that you can't even see (more like don't want to see) the obvious and simple explanations that don't involve a govt agency even when you are lookign so hard through my posts.

Like i said there's no point trying to convince a blind one track mind thats already made up.

Last post from me on this.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by DaithiSurfer
Last post from me on this.

What, without even a cursory reply to my question?!

mr_angry

Lets say NORAD said that yes they did tell the pilots not to catch up with those planes just in case they spooked the hijackers and the hijackers then crashed the plane on purpose

Great plan - do nothing. And then why try to cover it up? Surely it would make more sense to admit they thought they were acting in the public interest? I apologise for not reading your post more closely - the bit with you suggesting we insert our own aliens/government conspiracy put me off - I confused it with more nonsensical ranting. I appreciate that its more believable, but hardly concrete.

Like i said there's no point trying to convince a blind one track mind thats already made up.

My mind is far from made up. I was just asking for a little more logic in your posts. I'm perfectly happy to accept the verdict of the people who investigate the matter. If they were to say that NORAD acted in the public interest, explain the missing people on the passenger manifesto properly, and explain why the interceptor fighter jets only flew at 27% of their top speed, then I'm perfectly willing to accept that. In fact, its my belief that there is a rational explanation for all this. But that has yet to be determined. And until that point, people are entitled to suggest the possible alternatives. These alternatives are not presented as absolute truth (forgive the sensationalist title to this thread), but do each have some (albeit shaky) basis in fact. Until they are disproven, they remain a possibility. If you don't want to read them, show some willpower and stop.

Last post from me on this.

I don't know whether to be happy or sad. We just seemd to get rational there...